For at least one of the chief combatants in the current NHL lockout, the outcome of the dispute seems likely to be the deciding factor in his continued employment.

Gary Bettman has been the commissioner of the NHL since February 1993. His time at the helm has been marked by expansion into previously untapped (and occasionally uninterested) American markets, rising league revenues, and labour disputes. The 1994-95 lockout was bloody; the 2004-05 lockout the nastiest in any professional sport. At this point, the 2012 lockout is showing no signs of being a milder affair than either of the preceding disputes.

Bettman has survived an era of labour turmoil because in retrospect he is largely seen to have been right, at least by NHL owners. In 1994-95 he pushed the players hard but ultimately was not able to institute a salary cap; the season was saved but the stage was set for the 2004-05 battle because league spending was out of control. In 2004-05 he lost the season but won the war: the NHLPA was shattered, and a salary cap reduced money spent on players to a fixed percentage of revenue. The money going to NHL owners spiked dramatically and fan interest seemingly never wavered; from an ownership perspective the return on the 2004-05 lockout easily justified the year of lost revenue.

This time is different. The 2012 lockout was never about a paradigm shift, such as the salary cap, that would dramatically alter the financial game for NHL owners. It was simply about improving the bottom line and tightening control a little bit: dropping the players’ share of hockey-related revenue from 57 percent to 50 percent and instituting some system measures that would give teams more control of their young players and outlaw the insanely long deals being signed by some owners.

In mid-October, both sides presented offers aimed at saving a full 82-game season. The NHLPA’s offer at that time would have represented a modest win for Bettman and been a payoff worth the loss of pre-season revenue. Tyler Dellow crunched the numbers here; the gap between the NHL and NHLPA proposals was relatively small and the league would have knocked the players down to 50 percent of HRR by the last few years of the deal.

The problem for the league is this: if they can’t get a substantially better deal out of the players’ association, why have they sacrificed the last month and a half? If the NHL plays a 40-game season, or even worse loses 2012-13 entirely, they need to make gains to compensate. If they end up with a deal similar to their last offer – a 50/50 split of hockey-related revenue after a short transition period and relatively minor system changes – that simply does not seem like enough of a gain to justify risking the season.

As I see it, if Bettman has been a hawk behind closed doors – and given that he is the man negotiating for the league, it seems likely that he’s been in support of its hawkish negotiating strategy –anything other than significant gains at this point will put his job at risk. His primary function in this battle is to make the owners money: if it turns out the owners would have made more money by (more or less) agreeing to the NHLPA’s terms in October his credibility with the Board of Governors will take a major hit.

Nearly two decades in the league’s top job has left Bettman with significant baggage. The one thing fans in every city seem to agree on is that he deserves to be booed whenever the opportunity arises. Labour battles have left him despised by many players; comments made during those battles have also made him distrusted. Those have not been fatal problems for the commissioner to date because he’s done a good job in his primary role: making the league money.

If Bettman fails in that role this time around, it will be difficult to make the argument that the league gains more than it loses by his presence. If, on the other hand, he succeeds in pushing the NHLPA further still there will be no question as to the value he brings NHL owners.

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the “X” in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.